Reactions from both Left and Right to President Bush’s
decision to
“This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we
can begin restoring the American people’s faith in a government and put the
country’s progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years.” – Sen. Barack Obama,
D-Ill.
“After evaluating the facts, the president came to a
reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct.” – Former
“This commutation sends the clear signal that in this
administration cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.” – Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
“The president said he would hold accountable anyone
involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the president shows his
word is not to be believed.” – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
“While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I
respect the president’s decision. This will allow a good American, who has done
a lot for his country, to resume his life.” – Former Sen. Fred Thompson,
R-Tenn.
However, we probably ought know a
little more about the process of granting presidential pardons and commuting
sentences before reaching any conclusions about whether Bush’s action was right
or wrong.
A Pardon Attorney in the U.S. Attorney General’s office is
responsible for investigating all requests for pardon or clemency and makes
recommendations to the President. The U.S. Attorney’s Manual Standards for Consideration
of Clemency Petitions notes the following:
“As a general matter, in clemency cases the correctness of
the underlying conviction is assumed, and the question
of guilt or innocence is not generally at issue.”
“The Pardon Attorney also routinely requests the United
States Attorney to solicit the views and recommendation of the sentencing
judge.”
“A commutation of sentence reduces the period of
incarceration; it does not imply forgiveness of the underlying offense, but
simply remits a portion of the punishment. It has no effect upon the underlying
conviction and does not necessarily reflect upon the fairness of the sentence
originally imposed.”
Generally, the pardon, clemency process takes place largely
under the radar of public scrutiny, until some case hits the headlines. And,
most people don’t realize how many pardons and commutations are granted. For
example, FDR granted 3,687 pardons; Truman, 2,044; Richard Nixon, 926; JFK,
575; Bill Clinton, 456; Jimmy Carter, 566 and Ronald Reagan, 406. To date, George W. Bush has granted only 77
pardons and four commutations.
Writing in the New
York Times in February 2001, Bill Clinton said, “The reason the framers of
our constitution vested this broad power (to pardon) in the Executive Branch
was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to
be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be. Some of
the uses of the power have been extremely controversial….”
I must admit, I’m conflicted on this issue. And, it’s
important to get the basic facts straight before reaching any conclusions: The
President did not “pardon” Libby. He “commuted” Libby’s prison sentence, but
left the conviction, the two-year probation, and the $250,000 fine stand. In
addition, Libby has already lost his license to practice law as a result of
having been convicted in this case. So, he is certainly paying a price for his
transgression.
Looking at another case of perjury, which of former
President Bill Clinton, may add a little more perspective about the “Scooter”
Libby matter. They both were charged with lying under oath. Libby was convicted
of lying and obstruction of justice in a criminal investigation, and
Commuting Libby’s prison sentence does smack of cronyism,
but it can also be viewed as righting a wrong. There was actually no underlying
crime involved, and the Independent Counsel knew that early on in the
investigation, yet he continued to pursue the case for three years, apparently
hoping to snare someone in the administration in the process. So, both sides
appear to have engaged in politics as usual.
The aft quoted adage, “Two wrongs don’t make a right,” seems
to fit. Glenn Beck summed things up rather neatly, commenting, “Gosh damn it,
the truth matters. Perjury, perjury. Don’t ever tell a
lie. Don’t care what they’re coming after you for. Never tell a lie unless you
work as the President or for the President… We no longer trust the people in
So, although I’m conflicted about Bush’s action, at the risk
of oversimplifying the situation, there are a few points that I think are key
and that provide the basis for my conclusion:
(1) There
was actually no underlying crime in the Libby case that is, disclosing that
Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. According to the legal
definition, she was not a “covert” agent, and the Special Prosecutor knew that.
In addition, he knew who had disclosed her name to the media, yet he persisted
in pursuing the investigation, and he withheld that information from the jury.
(2) Libby’s
perjury appears to have been due more to a failure of memory rather than a
deliberate effort to mislead. This point may be a bit difficult for some people
to appreciate, but if you have ever been required to give testimony in a
lawsuit or in court, and I have, you quickly realize that almost no one has
specific recall of everything they ever said, or when. Turning what amounts to
normal fuzziness of memory into perjury in Libby’s case seems a stretch to me.
(3) The New York Post
noted (March 7, 2007), “In the end, the jury seemed wholly confused by the
case. Indeed, just an hour before delivering its verdict, after 10 days of deliberations, the jurors
were sending out notes trying to figure out precisely what Libby was accused of
having done. Maybe the jury was less
interested in that little detail than in just going home…Taken at face value,
the verdict means that the jury refused to believe Scooter Libby's claim of
having a bad memory - though the witnesses against him all showed equally bad,
even conflicting, recollections about the same event.”
In the final analysis, I come down on the side that favors
commutation of Libby’s prison term. The rest of the sentence stands, and that
seems like more than sufficient punishment to me.
But, I also come down on Glenn Beck’s side. I’m fed up with
politicians lying and perverting our political system for political advantage
and or financial gain. It’s pretty clear that people in public office are no
longer willing to do right simply because it is right, without looking for some
quid pro quo or personal profit.
We’ve got to find a way to fix this before it destroys us.
Don’t ask me how.
©
2007 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved